JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. The petitioners have questioned the grant of additional sanction plan dated May 3, 2011 to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for construction of the premises. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner is the owner of 50% of such premises. According to the petitioners they did not give consent for obtaining the additional sanction or gave consent for construction. They have sought a declaration that, the first petitioner is the 50% owner of the roof of the building and that, the additional sanction plan is liable to be cancelled. 2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the first petitioner had purchased a portion of the premises concerned along with the roof rights by virtue of a registered deed of conveyance on July 11, 2009. The first petitioner had applied for mutation with the Corporation authorities. Such mutation was allowed on September 30, 2010. He has submitted, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the Corporation authorities that, the Corporation authorities had granted the sanction on November 10, 2010 i.e. after the date of the mutation. The Corporation authorities ought not to have granted such sanction without the consent of the petitioners. He has referred to Section 397 of the Kolkata Municipal Act, 1980 and has submitted that, the additional sanction granted by the Corporation authorities should be rescinded. He has also referred to the Kolkata Corporation Buildings Rules, 1980 particularly Rules 3 and 4 thereof and has submitted that, it was the obligation of the Corporation authorities to enquire into the right to construct before granting the additional sanction to the existing building plan. The Corporation authorities knew that the first petitioner was 50% owner of the premises concerned. The Corporation authorities, therefore, ought not to have granted the additional sanction. 3. The writ petition has been opposed on behalf of the private respondent no. 4 as also the Corporation authorities. 4. Learned Advocate for the Corporation authorities has submitted, referring to the records that, the Corporation had granted additional sanction on the basis of the request made by the owners. The Corporation authorities are not concerned with the private disputes. The writ petition concerns private disputes. 5. Learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4 has referred to the documents giving title to the petitioner. He has referred to the agreement dated July 12, 2009. The Corporation authorities are not concerned with the private disputes. The writ petition concerns private disputes. 5. Learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4 has referred to the documents giving title to the petitioner. He has referred to the agreement dated July 12, 2009. He has submitted that, the agreement dated July 12, 2009 is between the private respondent and the first petitioner. By such agreement the first petitioner had authorised the private respondent to obtain necessary permission from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for additional plan. The first petitioner had also agreed not to disturb and/or make any illegal and immoral activity to the private respondent in enjoying the remaining 50% of the area. He has submitted that subsequent of such authorization, the private respondent had applied for additional sanction and had made the necessary construction. He has also referred to the deed of conveyance dated July 11, 2009 and has submitted that, the first petitioner is entitled to 50% of the final roof of the building. The agreement dated July 12, 2009 read with the conveyance dated July 11, 2009 allows the first petitioner to enjoy 50% of the final roof. The private respondent has no objection to the first petitioner enjoying the same. The petitioners knew of the sanction plan. Learned Advocate for the private respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that, the second petitioner was a partner of the agency entrusted with the construction. The petitioner, therefore, knew of all the happenings in relation to the construction. The petitioners should not be permitted to contend otherwise. 6. In reply the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners had submitted that, the second petitioner has resigned as a partner from the agency entrusted with the work of construction. He has referred the deed of conveyance and submitted that, the first petitioner had purchased the super built up area on the 3rd floor of the premises and 50% of the open roof. 7. I have considered the rival contention of the parties and the materials made available on record. 8. The first petitioner has purchased the super built up area on the rd floor of Premises No.41, Bipin Bihari Ganguly Street, Kolkata and 50% of the open roof. Such purchase was made by a registered deed of conveyance dated July 11, 2009. Premises No. 41, Bipin Bihari Ganguly Street, Kolkata consist of various floors. 8. The first petitioner has purchased the super built up area on the rd floor of Premises No.41, Bipin Bihari Ganguly Street, Kolkata and 50% of the open roof. Such purchase was made by a registered deed of conveyance dated July 11, 2009. Premises No. 41, Bipin Bihari Ganguly Street, Kolkata consist of various floors. Apparently, there are a number of owners owning different portions of such premises. The deed of conveyance contemplates and specifies the common portion of the premises. Final roof of the building is one of the common portions stated in the deed of conveyance. 9. Subsequent to the first petitioner purchasing the property in question, it had entered into an agreement dated July 12, 2009 with the private respondent. By such agreement the first petitioner had agreed that, the private respondent would obtain necessary permission from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for additional plan. It had also agreed not to disturb the private respondent from enjoying the remaining 50% of the roof area or any area belonging to the private respondent. 10. The first petitioner had applied for mutation with the Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities. Such mutation was effected on September 30, 2010. 11. It appears from the records that, the Corporation authorities have received a proposal for additional sanction in January, 2008. It had adopted a resolution for grant of additional sanction on November 10, 2010. It had made over the additional sanction plan on May 3, 2011. 12. It is not in dispute that, the private respondent had constructed in terms of additional sanction plan and has raised several floors over the roof of the 3rd floor of the building. The question is, given the documentations entered into between the parties, and made available on record, is the private respondent entitled to do so. 13. By the deed of conveyance, the first petitioner had purchased the 3rd floor with the right of 50% of the roof over the 3rd floor. No document has been placed before Court to suggest that, the first petitioner had waived its right over the 50% of the roof on the 3rd floor. It had applied for mutation of its portion with the Corporation authorities. The Corporation authorities had allowed such mutation. Subsequent to the mutation be allowed an additional sanction plan was issued by the Corporation authorities in favour of the private respondent. The petitioner had protested against such issuance. It had applied for mutation of its portion with the Corporation authorities. The Corporation authorities had allowed such mutation. Subsequent to the mutation be allowed an additional sanction plan was issued by the Corporation authorities in favour of the private respondent. The petitioner had protested against such issuance. The Corporation authorities did not act on the basis of such protest. 14. By the deed of conveyance dated July 11, 2009, the private respondent had given the 50% right of the roof on the 3rd floor to the first petitioner. It could not have applied for additional sanction over such space without the consent or authorization of the first petitioner. The roof right has not been demarcated by metes and bounds. The first petitioner claims not have authorized the private respondent to either obtain the additional sanction or for making the construction. The agreement dated July 12, 2009 does not, in my view, authorise the private respondent from making the construction. At best, it can be extended to mean that, the first petitioner had authorized the private respondent for the purpose of obtaining the additional sanction plan. Viewed from such a perspective, the private respondent has exceeded its authority under the agreement dated July 12, 2009 in making constructions over the roof top of the 3rd floor. 15. The prayers as framed in the writ petition and the nature of allegations levelled by the parties against each other prompts one to be of the viewed that, the disputes raised ought to be relegated to a more elaborate adjudicatory process than a summary trial as obtaining in a writ petition. Such course is not embarked upon, in the facts of the present case, as the relief sought in the writ petition is depended upon interpretation of title deeds. The title deeds are not in dispute. 16. In such circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the declaration that, the construction made on the roof top of the 3rd floor of the premises is illegal and is liable to be and should be demolished. The Corporation authorities will take appropriate steps in terms of this order. 17. W.P. No. 880 of 2011 is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.